C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Let me first ask what kind of Proof do you want?
If Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a Disciple of St. John, would you accept Irenaeus’ writings as Proof?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
If Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a Disciple of St. John, would you accept Irenaeus’ writings as Proof?
J
Justy90
Guest
anything you can giveLet me first ask what kind of Proof do you want?
If Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a Disciple of St. John, would you accept Irenaeus’ writings as Proof?
J
Justy90
Guest
Oh Amen! Very well presented and very true.The foundation for the trinity was present in Gen 1:1 the word for God is elohim which is a singular plural. It’s like calling you your name as a plural but you are only one person. Incidentally elohim is the third word of Gen 1:1 1 בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים . That’s no coincidence. Dt 6:4 the shma is calling God ONE but in the plural form. Gen 1:26 God says let US make man in OUR own image. The Holy Spirit is seen as the agent of creation and is revealed in the masculine form and is given personal identity. The formula for baptism has the trinity present. This is significant because God will share His glory with no one. They are equally equated with God therefore they are God. They are portrayed as three separate distinct persons yet are one in being.
The word trinity does not appear in the bible but the trinity clearly does.
There are definite clear and evident teachings of scripture. These we hold to. We hold scripture as the final arbiter of truth. When scripture is the final authority man made traditions hold no sway.
There are a plethera of examlpes of the doctrine of the trinity in the bible that would fill many pages here. We don’t have time enough to discussthem all.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Mary being a virgin her whole life. The Bible does not say it, but lots of the Early Church Fathers do.anything you can give
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
Mary being sinless. It is not explicitly stated, but we have “Full of Grace”.
catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp
How are those 2 for starters.
J
Justy90
Guest
Justy90;6202153:
If Jesus wanted us to follow what was written, why did He not write anything down?I do agree that Scripture has Authority, but I do not think it is the only Authority. And neither did the Apostles.
1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
Also, it is evident from Scripture that Paul and others had written other letters that were lost and destroyed. Does this mean we do not possess the Complete Bible?
The Apostles did exactly what Jesus wanted them to do, go out and Proclaim the Good News. They did this by Mouth.
Scripture isn’t the only authority, it is supreme and the final word. Jesus many times proclaimed “It Is Written” when teaching and preaching. Scripture is refered to by itself several times when focusing upon the truth. Without Scripture to tell us we would not know that the Church is the pillar of truth. Finally, the Bible was canonized with the guidance and discernment of the Holy Spirit. Whether Peter and Paul wrote 10 epistles that didn’t get canonized or 10,000 does not matter in light of what the Holy Spirit does.
J
Justy90
Guest
Those don’t hold thin air. These are not Apostolic teachings. Other folks in Scripture were full of grace as well. You can’t get perpetually sin free from “full of grace”, sorry.Mary being a virgin her whole life. The Bible does not say it, but lots of the Early Church Fathers do.
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
Mary being sinless. It is not explicitly stated, but we have “Full of Grace”.
catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp
How are those 2 for starters.
Mary being a virgin her whole life opposes Scripture.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Jesus was talking about the Old Testament, to be fair.Scripture isn’t the only authority, it is supreme and the final word. Jesus many times proclaimed “It Is Written” when teaching and preaching. Scripture is refered to by itself several times when focusing upon the truth. Without Scripture to tell us we would not know that the Church is the pillar of truth. Finally, the Bible was canonized with the guidance and discernment of the Holy Spirit. Whether Peter and Paul wrote 10 epistles that didn’t get canonized or 10,000 does not matter in light of what the Holy Spirit does.
The Apostles often referred to the Old Testament.
I agree that it is nice to have something written down, but that is because we live in a different time. When the Apostles were preaching, word of mouth was the only way to teach effectively. Once a Church was established, then yes, correspondence could take place, but the Apostles and their Disciples whom they were training, would still go back and visit the Church’s if they could.
I agree that the Holy Bible was canonized with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But if you looked at my link, their is no indication that the New Testament writings are the final word.
John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.
Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.
Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.
2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).
2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are thousands of different Protestant denominations.
2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
The Bible itself disproves Sola Scriptura.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
How do you know they were not Apostolic Teachings? Because the Apostles didn’t write them down?Those don’t hold thin air. These are not Apostolic teachings. Other folks in Scripture were full of grace as well. You can’t get perpetually sin free from “full of grace”, sorry.
Mary being a virgin her whole life opposes Scripture.
J
Justy90
Guest
How do you prove that they are??How do you know they were not Apostolic Teachings? Because the Apostles didn’t write them down?
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
haha, that’s my point and why I asked you what you considered proof.How do you prove that they are??
So it seems that you hold to the Bible as the only Authority, even though that very same Bible says not to?
1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
The letters had to be written because so often the churches fell out of line or were ignorant of the teachings. It’s pretty clear whether you want to admit it or not that the Scriptures are to serve as the supreme authority. Jesus said so many times when he was preaching, “It Is Written”.
J
Justy90
Guest
But certainly not anything which contradicts Scripture. John 20:30 also states that Jesus did other miracles in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in the Bible, BUT verse 31 goes on to say, But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and by believing you may have life in his name.haha, that’s my point and why I asked you what you considered proof.
So it seems that you hold to the Bible as the only Authority, even though that very same Bible says not to?
1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
This surely doesn’t signify that anything is on par with Scripture for authority.
J
Justy90
Guest
Justy90;6202153:
and Protestants generally ignore this fact.2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God’s word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants’ often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures,
2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul’s teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.
2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.
2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse “all Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul’s reference to the “man of God” who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.
2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
The whole bottom line is that tradition always must parallel Scripture. If it doesn’t, then it falls into the category which Scripture describes well as man’s traditions which are not appropriate.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Do any of the Doctrines of Mary contradict Scripture?But certainly not anything which contradicts Scripture. John 20:30 also states that Jesus did other miracles in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in the Bible, BUT verse 31 goes on to say, But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and by believing you may have life in his name.
This surely doesn’t signify that anything is on par with Scripture for authority.
And what about the Eucharist? Is it really the Flesh of the Son of man, or just a symbol? I do not think Scripture definitive says.
J
Justy90
Guest
The Marian Dogmas of Catholicism absolutely contradict Scripture as well as what the Catholic catechism states regarding Mary and the titles given to her by Rome.Do any of the Doctrines of Mary contradict Scripture?
And what about the Eucharist? Is it really the Flesh of the Son of man, or just a symbol? I do not think Scripture definitive says.
The Eucharist on the other hand explicitly is defined by Scripture as the Body and Blood of Christ. He said so. He also said that the bread which comes from Heaven IS my flesh.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Oh, I never said or meant to imply that Tradition is better or above Scripture, and surely if something was to contradict Scripture, like you said, then it must be wrong.The whole bottom line is that tradition always must parallel Scripture. If it doesn’t, then it falls into the category which Scripture describes well as man’s traditions which are not appropriate.
I guess I was thinking about all the stuff that is not explicitly defined in scripture, but their is a strong Tradition of. The Pope, Mary, pretty much anything the Catholic Church does which Protestants criticize as not being in the Bible.
T
Teneas
Guest
chessmane4e5;6202349:
And who is the judge of this? Who is the judge of whether tradition is still parallel with Scripture or not?The whole bottom line is that tradition always must parallel Scripture. If it doesn’t, then it falls into the category which Scripture describes well as man’s traditions which are not appropriate.
Who are you, or anyone to say that tradition is not in parallel with scripture? Your interpretation? The guy down the street’s interpretation? The Southern Baptist Convention? The Lutheran’s? The Catholic’s? Who?
There has to be someone here to tell us. Other than “Well God will tell us”. Cause, guess what…God works through man.
J
Justy90
Guest
Not parallel with Scripture is the appropriate term.Oh, I never said or meant to imply that Tradition is better or above Scripture, and surely if something was to contradict Scripture, like you said, then it must be wrong.
I guess I was thinking about all the stuff that is not explicitly defined in scripture, but their is a strong Tradition of. The Pope, Mary, pretty much anything the Catholic Church does which Protestants criticize as not being in the Bible.
J
Justy90
Guest
Justy90;6202363:
So does the evil one.And who is the judge of this? Who is the judge of whether tradition is still parallel with Scripture or not?
Who are you, or anyone to say that tradition is not in parallel with scripture? Your interpretation? The guy down the street’s interpretation? The Southern Baptist Convention? The Lutheran’s? The Catholic’s? Who?
There has to be someone here to tell us. Other than “Well God will tell us”. Cause, guess what…God works through man.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Care to give some evidence how?The Marian Dogmas of Catholicism absolutely contradict Scripture as well as what the Catholic catechism states regarding Mary and the titles given to her by Rome.
Yet there are many interpretations of the Scripture. Catholics believe in Transubstantiation, but others believe in: Real Presence, Transignification, Sacramental Union, Memorialism, Consubstantiation, Impanation, Consecration, Words of Institution. Which is it? Catholics think they have it right, either from Tradition or from infallibility (not sure which, maybe I should find out).The Eucharist on the other hand explicitly is defined by Scripture as the Body and Blood of Christ. He said so. He also said that the bread which comes from Heaven IS my flesh.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.